You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
I don't think we can argue with that. I would be very disappointed if Akrotiri is used. US bombers can fly from Israel.
After the catastrophe of Iraq the last thing a new Labour government needs is a big f***-off American vanity war in the Middle East.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
The reason for the 24 week number is that the foetus is generally viable on its own at that time.
So remove it from the womb and it lives without (much) medical intervention.
So, as these things go, a fairly rational demarcation point.
Fetal survival rate in the UK: 24 weeks: Survival rates range from 42% to 59%. 23 weeks: Survival rates are lower, typically around 23% to 27%. 25 weeks: Survival rates improve, ranging from 67% to 76%
Discounting the elevated risk of severe long-term health complications.
Yes.
Almost as if 24 weeks was a compromise, based on the reality of there being no absolute number, isn’t it?
From my (considerably out of date) experience of such matters 24 weeks was 'should be OK' but any less was a matter for head-shaking and rapid intakes of breath.
My niece was born at 23 weeks.
The reaction of one nurse at the hospital - the child was doing well and just being monitored without medical intervention - was curious.
And the reaction was? As I said, my experience is rather out-of-date but I would have thought 23 weeks could have been borderline. As I've also posted, our elder son was round about that level 60+ years ago and although it took him a bit of time to catch up he held down an intellectually demanding job for many years.
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
A case that I would welcome comment on, from whatever view. A man's wheelchair was confiscated by the police for 3 weeks and kept in the vehicle pound. Without it he was not comfortably mobile, even within his own home. It took some heavy intervention to shift the police stance.
The core issues are around the regulatory hole between tricycle, wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and which category a clip-on hand cycle fits into, the police being ill-informed / officious, and the failure of Governments to keep regulations up to date. Using a clip-on handcycle (manual or battery) can double or treble autonomous travel radius for a wheelchair user - maybe to 8-15 miles in any direction. This has been a campaign issue for a few years.
My photo today is the one at the bottom, which is a manual wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle attachment, as you can see.
Police impound disabled man's wheelchair for 3 weeks
A severely disabled man from New Cross was left housebound and completely dependent on friends and family, while he appealed to police to release his wheelchair from Charlton Vehicle Pound. ... When Vidal woke up in hospital, he was told that the police had confiscated his wheelchair.
It took three weeks of appeals and lobbying from Vidal, his family, his GP, hospital medics and eventually advocacy groups before he got it back.
Vidal is paraplegic with complex health needs and has a specially adapted, manual wheelchair. It has an option to attach a wheel at the front, this can be manually operated as a "hand bike", or with different attachments, operated as an electric bike. The attachments are designed to be easily clipped on and off.
On this occasion, Vidal had clipped a battery-powered electric bike attachment onto his wheelchair. He explained that he has used the electric bike attachment for years, travelled extensively with it, including through airports, and that he believed it was legal. https://www.salamandernews.org/police-impound-disabled-mans-wheelchair-3-weeks/
If only they were as diligent with criminal's
Malcolm, hope you’re well
We live in a society where if you’re a repeat offender or a burglar, shoplifter, phone thief, there’s little chance of any comeback.
But if you fail tonisurevyour car, it SORN it, or get the wrong train ticket in error, or not have a tv license then the law really comes down on you.
Fuck the Police and the judicial system that enables it
Hello Taz, Yes all well here. Hope same for you and you are enjoying retirement.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Birth.
That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.
What! I've never heard that. How do you know that?
Very few even remember their early childhood, maybe a few key points at best.
You would have every right to call Starmer out for that. I would be highly surprised if Starmer could get that through Parliament even with his majority. We would find ourselves with a f*** load of ProPalestine/Iran inner city MPs at the next GE if he pulls that stroke. I'd vote for them myself too!
It looks like the assistance will be restricted to "letting them use Diego Garcia", which is perhaps more permissible
We really don't want the RAF bombing bloody Qom. What extra can we add other than making us more of a target for understandable retaliation?
Comments
After the catastrophe of Iraq the last thing a new Labour government needs is a big f***-off American vanity war in the Middle East.
I wish your niece and her family all the best.
NEW THREAD
https://www.science.org/content/article/maya-civilization-used-chocolate-money
Starmer is going to do it anyway
Like Barry
https://youtu.be/lr7WChCUAXI?si=_bwVng32qDCwuCih